4 ms·

There's an expanse of gradation in policies that embrace "untalented yet hardworking" and "true meritocracy". It's not a binary choice. What's the HR method th

There's an expanse of gradation in policies that embrace "untalented yet hardworking" and "true meritocracy". It's not a binary choice. What's the HR method that can parse untalented and hardworking vs untalented and putting in normal hours? What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary.

acuozzo 3y ago
> It's not a binary choice. Which I acknowledged by describing it as a slippery slope. > What's the HR method that can parse untalented and hardworking vs untalented and putting in normal hours? One does not exist AFAICT and, with any luck, one will never exist. > What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary. By untalented I did not necessarily mean stupid. I meant non-"rockstar" or whatever the mythical 10X programmer is called nowadays.
carlosjobim 3y ago
> What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary. In most cases there is no cost at all of the untalented, employers make profits on their work as well. Just look at salaries compared to profits. If a talented worker makes her company a profit of 10 million dollars just because of her work, she'll be lucky to get 100 000 dollars out of that. So there's plenty of money left for paying the untalented. And they are sure to also get less than they deserve.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  > In most cases there is no cost at all of the untalented What? If you earn $1000 and then you go buy a TV for $990, is it true that the TV had "no cost at all," since you now have $10? If you get a free TV, but you have to drive 8 hours one way to pick it up then 8 hours back the other way, is it true that the TV had "no cost at all?"
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Let's say a talented employee makes his company 10 000 dollars of profit each month, while costing 1000 dollars in salary. An untalented employee might however only make the company 5000 dollars of profit each month, while costing the same 1000 salary. The company still makes money on the untalented employee, so it's not right to talk about cost. This is how things work in most companies.

acuozzo 3y ago

> It's not a binary choice. Which I acknowledged by describing it as a slippery slope. > What's the HR method that can parse untalented and hardworking vs untalented and putting in normal hours? One does not exist AFAICT and, with any luck, one will never exist. > What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary. By untalented I did not necessarily mean stupid. I meant non-"rockstar" or whatever the mythical 10X programmer is called nowadays.

carlosjobim 3y ago

> What's the cost of untalented? It's probably not just their salary. In most cases there is no cost at all of the untalented, employers make profits on their work as well. Just look at salaries compared to profits. If a talented worker makes her company a profit of 10 million dollars just because of her work, she'll be lucky to get 100 000 dollars out of that. So there's plenty of money left for paying the untalented. And they are sure to also get less than they deserve.

ethanbond 3y ago
> In most cases there is no cost at all of the untalented What? If you earn $1000 and then you go buy a TV for $990, is it true that the TV had "no cost at all," since you now have $10? If you get a free TV, but you have to drive 8 hours one way to pick it up then 8 hours back the other way, is it true that the TV had "no cost at all?"
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Let's say a talented employee makes his company 10 000 dollars of profit each month, while costing 1000 dollars in salary. An untalented employee might however only make the company 5000 dollars of profit each month, while costing the same 1000 salary. The company still makes money on the untalented employee, so it's not right to talk about cost. This is how things work in most companies.